I think the number of pieces was fine. Six is on the low end, but acceptable. The placement however was atrocious. Two forests placed in the back corners, that have no impact on the game was really bad. If the six pieces are kept, and then actually placed where they have an effect on the game, then that would be good. Or let the players place terrain before each game, that would probably be better.

25% of the table should be terrain and the easiest way to make sure you have the right amount is putting it into the corner of the board.

In the past I would have argued that fixed terrain is the best idea but I completely disagree now giving terrain placement a chance out in Toledo with the Sparks crew. It truly does not take long at all not sure why your experience was different.

Placing terrain is a great idea just taking turns placing things since it resolves so many issues. 1) No one will ever switch sides again since the table is empty when you get there and choose a side. 2) Terrain moved by others and than in the wrong place will not lead to arguments of "how it should be". 3) Terrain placement is a part of 6th edition and it is a huge strategy game. Until you do it you won't see how complex it could be and the sheer level of variety you can get from the same general terrain is awesome.4) Terrain being broken by display boards would not happen because players move it all to one corner after the round. 5) The rules they put in place are key to it being successful: Terrain you place must be 51% on your half of the board. 3" away from Fortifications that are placed before terrain on a barren board.

* I am 100% in favor of having terrain placement be as an extension to your own army. Any general chooses their battle location if possible.

I knew a man who once said, ”Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.”

I am not interested in player placing terrain if at any time it results in a huge LOS site blocker being placed in front of an opponents fortification. It is also ridiculous to have player placed terrain when your opponents places all his pieces in the far corner and leaves the board empty. Why would you do that? When you have a heavy flier based army and leave an open killing field in the missile of the board and a area of impassible terrain in a corner where Imotekh hides.

Several editions ago we had strict player placed terrain and it was possible for some, not all, but for some to design armies that really warped the game and took full advantage of it.

A 4th edition Nidzilla list was unbeatable as long as there was a an Los blocker at mid board. No amount of shooting could stop the Carnifexes with that piece in the middle.

It was also a terrible idea in BFG at A-con a few years ago, when it was player-placed. The all-nova cannon Imperial Navy did quite well...until it ran into me of course, but still.

"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealously, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence. In other words, it is war, minus the shooting." - George Orwell

player placed terrain where they place terrain to counter a fortification is part of the strategy of this edition. Thats why the set up rules are designed that way. Otherwise fortification take over a game far too easily. Aegis lines cover a huge area, bastions are incredibly tall, fortresses, and skyshields are also huge. I would be incredibly surprised to see somebody place a single piece of terrain that would completely negate a fortification somebody brought. Especially with the terrain at adepticon.

Player placed terrain is how the edition was designed to work with the missions. I think you want to keep it as close to all of that as possible.

In addition I am all for knocking players out of their comfort zone....Wait you mean I wont be able to put down a defense line camp behind it and shoot you as you run across open ground at me... It forces more fluid tactics and can shake up a game. In a tournament we're looking for the best player not the best list, and part of being a good player is adaptability and fluidity in your tactics.

yes there will be circumstances where terrain placed by players will be stupid, however it's more likely it wont be those crazy outliers. The same is also true for the lists people bring, and what kind of player they are.....

Complete Line of sight blocking these days is also pretty hard to come by. Don't forget the nidzilla list was hard to deal with because forest blocked line of sight completely and infinitely high back then. There is virtually nothing like that these days with the changes to line of sight

You pay for the fortifications. It's disingenuous to negate it by simply placing a Los blocking piece of terrain in front of the quad gun in an ADL. It doesn't need to be a big piece and the guys 100pt ADL is chopped down to size. Fortifications are a counter to flyers. Why make flyers more powerful by negating some armies ONLY source of Skyfire and interceptor?

I can make a gun line IG list and place every cover save terrain piece in the far corner. Most games might have 1-2 true Los blocking pieces. The IG player can place that piece in the ar corner and out of the game. Good for gun line and bad for everyone else.

Player terrain placement can really be abused and helps no one except the extreme lists. Balanced terrain placement means balanced player lists. Let me flood a zone or hide Los blocking pieces and more extreme lists can come out to play. That will have the opposite effect you want with fluid play and in game tactics.

Don't give me the "it's in the rules" argument. Two force org. Charts at 2000pts is in the rules to, but those are routinely ignored. You can't have it both ways.

1) 51% of each terrain piece you place must be on your side of the board. ( Can't screw over fortifications)

2) With 25% terrain you can't have barren boards since all pieces must be 6" away from edges and 3 from other terrain. The board works out every time to have a very balanced terrain spread game. If someone where to sit there and calculate the best way to have some terrain pieces at the end not fit on the board they could if they really tried but if you want terrain your going to pull the ones you want in order to keep things fair.

I played with these rules for 10 games and we had 10 very different boards all with an equal placement and very well dispersed. I should ask Greg for the pictures.

I knew a man who once said, ”Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back.”

and yes you can be a dick and place stuff like that, but like I said you can do the same thing in list creation. like bring 12 flyers, or 26 tanks, or 15 monstrous creatures. Those sorts of things are the exceptions not the norm. Nothing prevents those sorts of things.

Oh and btw, 100 points for an adl, is super undercosted. What it does to certain armies is crazy good. There should be some kind of downside.

And Flyers only counter is not a defense line. And you may not have something on your table that could block a quad gun, and half the time you can place terrain first so put something there that doesn't bone you. Lots of options here.

Generalissimo_Fred wrote:You pay for the fortifications. It's disingenuous to negate it by simply placing a Los blocking piece of terrain in front of the quad gun in an ADL.

You pay for every unit in the game, and every unit in the game can, to some extent, be negated by terrain placement. There's nothing special about fortifications, except that they're underpriced.

Besides, if you use the terrain placement rules from the book, (and you win the die roll), you can put the first terrain piece near enough to your fortification to prevent your opponent from also blocking it.

Player terrain placement can really be abused and helps no one except the extreme lists. Balanced terrain placement means balanced player lists.

6th ed, in general, isn't about balanced anything. It's about getting the right matchup for the right mission. Don't fool yourself into believing that simply "balancing the terrain" will result in reasonable lists. Besides, everyone's idea of balanced terrain is different. Gunlines think anything that blocks LOS in midfield is unbalanced.

Don't give me the "it's in the rules" argument. Two force org. Charts at 2000pts is in the rules to, but those are routinely ignored. You can't have it both ways.

Sure you can. TOs can pick and choose whatever aspects of the rules they want.

YeezyMozart wrote:1) 51% of each terrain piece you place must be on your side of the board. ( Can't screw over fortifications)

So that favours a lot of terrain in the middle of the table, and has a side effect of making fortifications more powerful than they are designed to be as there are then no counters to fortifications...

Put bluntly, 6th ed sucks donkey balls. It's a stupidly unbalanced rule-set and while you can try to impose stop-gap measures to address one player's concern, all the proposals I've seen to date end up simply pushing the stupid in a different direction. Fortifications may help counter flyers, but they counter more than just flyers. If you nerf forts, you buff flyers. If you nerf terrain placement, you buff forts. Someone's getting screwed regardless and none of it helps balanced lists do better, it's just what flavour of extreme you want.

"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated."